Climate change: The Critical Decade

Why is it so goddamned hard for anyone to grasp that we stand on the cusp of saving the Earth from a serious cataclysm by embracing the free renewable energy which has kept the world running for a couple of billion years till now and not causing some huge huge amount of grief to anyone in the process.

Click to expand...

What FREE renewable energy are you talking about?
The problem with adopting more renewable energy has always been that it is very expensive compared to other options. In the US we pay large subsidies to Wind and Solar and still the amount of energy we get from them, after all this time, is pitifully small compared to our overall usage.

The way to a clean future is staring us in the face, we can make the change in the space of ten years or so.

Click to expand...

Who is WE in this statement?

What do you mean, (more precisely), by "we can make the change in the space of ten years or so".

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

The problem with adopting more renewable energy has always been that it is very expensive compared to other options. In the US we pay large subsidies to Wind and Solar and still the amount of energy we get from them, after all this time, is pitifully small compared to our overall usage.

Click to expand...

Incompetent bookkeeping is the only remaining support of that illusion.

In my state, a local utility is losing money because its wind generation capability overran the growth in spot demand, and it has no storage capability. The local nuke, on the other hand, has subsidized waste storage and a host of other hooks into the taxpayer's pocket, on top of its risk premium (which is simply left out of all official calculations) and other costs. Plus, since it has the same design infelicities that were so much trouble at Fukushima, it is facing either an expensive retrofit or further neglect of hazard.

Meanwhile, the mercury in the lakes (along with the other problems with coal power) has damaged various fishing and other commercial/recreational resources, at large but untabulated cost. And so forth.

And we haven't even started talking about thermal solar - the cheapest form of power production yet invented, AFAIK.

Perhaps best of all, if something goes wrong and we decide we don’t like the results of the stratoshield or the oceanic clouds, we can stop the programs immediately and any effects will quickly disappear. These two geo-engineering solutions are completely reversible.

Click to expand...

That's idiotic. They're going to play with the weather to counter the effects of a change in the chemical composition of the atmosphere, and what could go wrong?

So: if we find out after thirty years the effects of our attempts to curb the effects of CO2 buildup are even worse than the effects of the CO2 buildup we have done nothing about, we can just stop and the effects will vanish? That would include the CO2 buildup, apparently - its effects vanish too, we are to presume.

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

It's unbelievable. Simply unbelievable. That climate change deniers exist is no great mystery. That climate change deniers can't at least admit that if climate change turns out to be false, the cutting down of emissions will have done more good than harm is more bemusing.

Click to expand...

Cutting down on emissions enough to make a difference in global warming projections would cost upwards of a trillion dollars per year. Wasting a trillion dollars per year would be quite harmful.

Even assuming it's not a waste, the reduction in carbon output necessary to address global warming is beyond our reach with current technology. I mean, look at China. Their increase in co2 output for 2009 (the most recent data) was the second largest one year increase for any nation in recorded history! The top 6 largest increases in co2 production in recorded history were all China and they were all in the past decade.

How do we go from the fasted growth in co2 output in recorded history to enough of a decrease to stop global warming? You think China is ready to stop industrializing? How about India?

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

Cutting down on emissions enough to make a difference in global warming projections would cost upwards of a trillion dollars per year. Wasting a trillion dollars per year would be quite harmful.

Click to expand...

Agreed. However, investing a trillion dollars in renewable, clean, low carbon energies will result in new industries, new jobs, new fields of research and new educational opportunities. It would be no more of a "waste" than the Apollo program was, or than Toyota's hybrid program was.

Even assuming it's not a waste, the reduction in carbon output necessary to address global warming is beyond our reach with current technology.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. We could accomplish a massive reduction tomorrow through nothing more than a concerted conservation effort. We just don't want to, because it would be annoying.

Long term we could easily greatly reduce our carbon footprint by doing nothing more than replacing coal burning power plants with nuclear plants. That alone would reduce our carbon output by 35% - and nuclear plants are definitely "current technology."

Nonsense. We could accomplish a massive reduction tomorrow through nothing more than a concerted conservation effort. We just don't want to, because it would be annoying.

Long term we could easily greatly reduce our carbon footprint by doing nothing more than replacing coal burning power plants with nuclear plants. That alone would reduce our carbon output by 35% - and nuclear plants are definitely "current technology."

Click to expand...

yes, but how much do we need to reduce carbon output to stop global warming? I did a quick calculation to try to figure out how much we'd need to decrease carbon output to cancel out a three degree rise in temperature over 100 years and came up with 53 gigatons per year. Given that current output is only about 30 gigatons per year, that seems unachievable. To cancel out a 2 degree change over 100 years would require a decrease of just 35 gigatons per year. Still a bit over total world output .

Unless my math is way off (it could be, it's based on this article), we would need cuts of 90% or more in co2 output to really make a difference in global warming projections.

Do you really think that's achievable without impoverishing or killing most of the human race?

Incompetent bookkeeping is the only remaining support of that illusion.

In my state, a local utility is losing money because its wind generation capability overran the growth in spot demand, and it has no storage capability. The local nuke, on the other hand, has subsidized waste storage and a host of other hooks into the taxpayer's pocket, on top of its risk premium (which is simply left out of all official calculations) and other costs. Plus, since it has the same design infelicities that were so much trouble at Fukushima, it is facing either an expensive retrofit or further neglect of hazard.

Click to expand...

Nuclear is not overly subsidized, certainly nowhere near the rate of $.022 per kWh for the first 10 years of operation that Wind receives.

Except the Nuclear plants were reviewed following Fukishima and generally found to be ok. The fact is we have better power backup and the midwest is not expecting a Tsunami anytime soon.

Besides, the issue is basically a red herring. We have only 1 Nuke under construction and that's really just the completion of one started decades ago and then halted. None are currently being built from the ground up.

The vast majority of power plant capacity that we have been adding for the last several decades have been Natural Gas and Coal.

Meanwhile, the mercury in the lakes (along with the other problems with coal power) has damaged various fishing and other commercial/recreational resources, at large but untabulated cost. And so forth.

Click to expand...

And we are finally dealing with that issue.

DOE said:

Emissions Levels Coming Down
The amount of mercury being deposited today on land and in water is actually much lower than in recent decades. Peat cores from Minnesota, for example, show that mercury deposition was highest in the 1950s, with levels about 10 times greater than those before 1900. By the 1980s, however, depositions had fallen to less than half of the 1950s. Emissions data from Sweden and measurements of mercury levels in birds and other animals in the United Kingdom also show a consistent pattern suggesting that mercury levels reached a peak around 1960.

Click to expand...

Continuing that trend Mercury emissions were cut a further 33% in the 90s and last Wed the EPA announced even tougher new rules on Mercury. The rules give power plants four years to meet the standards and will prevent 91 percent of mercury in coal from being released into the air. (Coal is responsible for about 1/3 of our mercury). This is already underway as the EPA has targeted the biggest mercury emitters and they are installing Activated Carbon Injection.
ACI is the primary technology being used to reduce mercury emissions from new and existing coal plants. Data from power plants shows that the tested boilers achieved, on average, reductions in mercury emissions of about 90 percent. As of June 2010, nearly 40 coal plant units had installed ACI and more than 100 additional units had ordered ACI.

And we haven't even started talking about thermal solar - the cheapest form of power production yet invented, AFAIK.

Except the Nuclear plants were reviewed following Fukishima and generally found to be ok.

Click to expand...

My local one's state of "OK" includes the setting aside, without action, of five year old complaints from its own engineers about its vent design - they spotted the Fukushima vent design problem years ago. It's still there. But the plant is OK, in the sense of operating normally - at least, in the year or so since they got the big control box hoisted off of the main junction cooling pipe assembly it landed on and bolted back on the wall.

See Table ES5 which clearly shows the HUGE per kWh subsidy for Wind and Solar.

If the $.07 per kWh was correct then the subsidy for nuclear would have been over $56 BILLION dollars.
Which is preposterous considering the total Energy Subsidies in the budget for all sources were only $16 Billion dollars.

But again, this has NOTHING to do with the argument about why we aren't building more Renewables if they are so cheap because we AREN'T building any new Nukes.

Read the introduction - that isn't even claimed to be a complete accounting.

Click to expand...

But it got all the BIGGIES

• Direct Expenditures. These are Federal programs that directly affect the energy industry and for which the Federal government provides funds that ultimately result in a direct payment to producers or consumers of energy.
• Tax Expenditures. Tax expenditures are provisions in the Federal tax code that reduce the tax liability of firms or individuals who take specified actions that affect energy production, consumption, or conservation in ways deemed to be in the public interest.
• Research and Development (R&D). Federal R&D spending focuses on a variety of goals, such as increasing U.S. energy supplies, or improving the efficiency of various energy production, transformation, and end-use technologies. R&D expenditures do not directly affect current energy production and prices, but, if successful, they could affect future production and prices.
• Electricity programs serving targeted categories of electricity consumers in
several regions of the country. Through the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and the Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs), The Federal government also indirectly supports portions of the electricity industry through loans and loan guarantees made by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service (RUS).

Click to expand...

So nothing big is left out, but there is NO REASON to include R&D sunk YEARS ago on Nuclear energy. Keeping track of water under the dam makes no sense at all. It's only ONGOING subsidies that matter.

And the source - Lamar Alexander's 2007 political hot papers? That's your idea of "less biased" about nukes, or government subsidy - the 2007 Republican Senator form Tennessee? Christ almighty.

The fact is though, almost all our new electrical capacity is coming from NG and Coal, not Nuclear and not Wind or Solar even considering their large ITC and PTC subsidies. A point which you continue to ignore.

Agreed. However, investing a trillion dollars in renewable, clean, low carbon energies will result in new industries, new jobs, new fields of research and new educational opportunities. It would be no more of a "waste" than the Apollo program was, or than Toyota's hybrid program was.

Click to expand...

You can't invest a Trillion dollars even if you wanted to.
We are already investing HUGE amounts of money in energy research and sucking up massive amounts of scientific talent both at the government/university level and at the corporate level. There simply isn't sufficient additional research agencies who could use that much money.

Nonsense. We could accomplish a massive reduction tomorrow through nothing more than a concerted conservation effort. We just don't want to, because it would be annoying.

Click to expand...

Really?
Energy is so cheap we waste it?
What low hanging fruit haven't been picked?
China's use of energy is growing by leaps and bounds.
Is this because they are wasteful?

Long term we could easily greatly reduce our carbon footprint by doing nothing more than replacing coal burning power plants with nuclear plants. That alone would reduce our carbon output by 35% - and nuclear plants are definitely "current technology."

Click to expand...

See Ice's comments on why not nuclear.

He may be wrong, but he is not alone.

The problem is the largest block of voters who want to do something about Climate Change won't accept Nuclear Power as the solution.

Oh you all got to hear this braking news . The wind generators in Montana are being asked to shut down . To much power coming from the Hydo Dams from all the run off from snow pack . They can only handle so much load and the Hydo dams are putting out to much already . Is that a crack up or what . To Funny . I just gots to shake my head . The wind Turbine people are crying the blues for they to date have not made the money and now they got to shut down . To Funny To Funny . Life is a joke and then you die

Oh you all got to hear this braking news . The wind generators in Montana are being asked to shut down . To much power coming from the Hydo Dams from all the run off from snow pack . They can only handle so much load and the Hydo dams are putting out to much already . Is that a crack up or what . To Funny . I just gots to shake my head . The wind Turbine people are crying the blues for they to date have not made the money and now they got to shut down . To Funny To Funny . Life is a joke and then you die

Click to expand...

Not all that surprising.

Late Spring in the Upper Midwest is our low point in Electricity demand (don't need either cooling or heating and the days are pretty long so demand from lighting is down and since it's spring people are out and about), but Spring is the high point for both Wind and Water, so occasional excesses are to be expected.

It's just a temporary thing and as the Summer wears on the amount of wind will decrease and the amount of water available.

Eventually we may come up with cheap enough means of storing this excess generation, but for now, it isn't generally economical to do so.

A problem for us with land based Wind systems is our peak demand is typically in the dead of winter and the dog days of Summer and those are the low points for wind generation. Solar peaks nicely with our Summer demand but no renewable peaks with our Winter demand.

Late Spring in the Upper Midwest is our low point in Electricity demand (don't need either cooling or heating and the days are pretty long so demand from lighting is down and since it's spring people are out and about), but Spring is the high point for both Wind and Water, so occasional excesses are to be expected.

It's just a temporary thing and as the Summer wears on the amount of wind will decrease and the amount of water available.

Eventually we may come up with cheap enough means of storing this excess generation, but for now, it isn't generally economical to do so.

A problem for us with land based Wind systems is our peak demand is typically in the dead of winter and the dog days of Summer and those are the low points for wind generation. Solar peaks nicely with our Summer demand but no renewable peaks with our Winter demand.

Click to expand...

Yeah I believe that . We were in drought for many many years until a couple years ago so the excess was not there in the past . This year we are between 160 to 400 percent of average . No telling what is going to happen in the next several weeks when the real melt starts . The rivers are just starting to fill up . Flooding is going on big time in the eastern part of the state . The Missouri river just might be roaring in the next couple of weeks so look out all you people that live close to the river . Coming at you . Oh I promise not to piss in your water even though I am tempted . Living at the head waters can be fun . The fishing is good

What FREE renewable energy are you talking about?
The problem with adopting more renewable energy has always been that it is very expensive compared to other options. In the US we pay large subsidies to Wind and Solar and still the amount of energy we get from them, after all this time, is pitifully small compared to our overall usage.

Who is WE in this statement?

What do you mean, (more precisely), by "we can make the change in the space of ten years or so".

Without a few specifics, that claim seems near impossible.

Arthur

Click to expand...

Arthur, your patronising attitude doesn't become you.

You know very well the 'we' I'm referring to,...if I really have to spell it out, HUMANS!

As, far as free energy, you know, the sun - the great shower of gold that pours squidbillions of kilowatts of energy upon the Earth every day, and the wind which blows its lungs out too. Yes, I know infrastructure has to put in place but the payback period is just not that long.

The U.S may only have a fractional percentage of its energy produced by renewables at present but it increases every year and with a little momentum it could snowball and make massive impact within ten years.

Impossible you say! Come on Arthur! There's an elephant in the room,....
Somebody has already done it....in the space of a decade....despite having one the lowest insolation rates in the developed world...
....Shhhhhh!,... not too loud now ....FUCKING GERMANY!!!

Arthur, I did think you were a bit more aware than that!
Sorry if I'm being condescending now. Sorry!

The really interesting thing for me in this thread is the attitude shift apparent in Madant's thinking, He's been a staunch conservative with seemingly exceedingly reserved views (sorry Madant, you're a clever guy but stuck in a conservative rut!) for ever but there's a sniff that he's seen the light!

Others might just come on board.
Renewables are the answer to the massive pollution problem and even Climate change.

And by the way, in the time it took me to write that post, China just churned out another city's worth of solar modules. And how do you cover the world with PV? One town at a time.

This summarises the current conclusions from the science of global warming. At 72 pages, it's a much easier read than the last major IPCC report (which was 2007, I believe).

The Climate Commission is a government body which is tasked with giving independent and unbiased advice to the Australian government, as well as with informing the public about issues surrounding climate change.

As the report says, basically there is no scientific debate about the fact of global warming, or that human carbon emissions are largely to blame for the current warming trend. The science has now moved on from such matters. The question that governments must now face is whether to do anything about the warming, and if so, what.

Click to expand...

Carbon-trapping and sequestering on a grand scale. Terraform the Earth.

You can't invest a Trillion dollars even if you wanted to. We are already investing HUGE amounts of money in energy research and sucking up massive amounts of scientific talent both at the government/university level and at the corporate level.

Click to expand...

Exactly. The RE market was around $8 billion in 1995. Now it's around $120 billion - which means that over the next eight years we'll invest a trillion dollars even it RE doesn't grow at all.

Really? Energy is so cheap we waste it?

Click to expand...

Absolutely. When's the last time you saw traffic on the freeway slow down to 50mph - not due to traffic, just to save gas? How many people have become vegetarians to save energy? How many people avoid travel to save energy? How many people bike instead of drive to work?

We use all that energy because it's cheap. If it wasn't so cheap we'd slow down/bike/eat more vegetables/buy a 50mpg car instead of a 13mpg one.

this year here, we had a good rain, all rivers were filled back, also dams, last year was dry and not much rain, and unsually hot in time that it should be cold, propably because the rains of a hall year fell in one area, and caused many floods in it, anyway, this year had alot of rain, good rain, and in mai, we had also alot of rain, this week, it was raining for many days, also the last week, wich in mai, it supose to be hot now, like about 27-28 (in Celsus)